[2020] KEELC 134 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 134 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had satisfied the threshold for the grant of leave to commence judicial review proceedings. The court exercised its discretion to order that the leave granted would operate as a stay of the impugned proceedings pending the hearing and determination of the substantive motion. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 134 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Hon. Muholi Senior Resident Magistrate; Respondent: Chief Magistrate’s Court Nairobi Milimani Commercial Court; Interested Party: Lucmi (E.A) Limited; Applicant: China Road & Bridge Corporation (K) Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E011 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Directions on Leave and Stay Pending Substantive Motion
Outcome
Leave granted; stay of proceedings ordered; directions issued for filing substantive motion; costs in the cause.
Judges
LC Komingoi
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Stay of Proceedings
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Stay of Proceedings

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Hon. Muholi Senior Resident Magistrate

Respondent

Chief Magistrate’s Court Nairobi Milimani Commercial Court

Respondent

Lucmi (E.A) Limited

Interested Party

China Road & Bridge Corporation (K) Limited

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Directions on Leave and Stay Pending Substantive Motion

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the leave granted should operate as a stay of proceedings pending the hearing of the substantive motion.
  3. 3 Whether the preliminary objection should be determined before the substantive motion is filed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had satisfied the threshold for the grant of leave to commence judicial review proceedings. The court exercised its discretion to order that the leave granted would operate as a stay of the impugned proceedings pending the hearing and determination of the substantive motion. The court further held that the preliminary objection raised by the respondents should be addressed after the substantive motion is filed, not at the leave stage. Accordingly, the court granted leave, ordered a stay, directed the applicant to file the substantive motion within twenty-one days, and ordered that costs be in the cause.

Court Disposition

Leave granted; stay of proceedings ordered; directions issued for filing substantive motion; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Leave is hereby granted to the applicant.
  • The leave granted shall operate as a stay pending the hearing of the substantive motion.